as already mentioned multiple times in this thread this'll require the Google Play app. Which SUCKS and is stupidly restrictively. Google also has no PC client, so for both of these reasons even if it costs money Apple's music match >>> Google's variation.

So if everyone does it why point out that "free" solutions aren't free? By that logic your paying for paid solutions twice and are still not the customer.

In short your cartoon doesn't support your point.

Apparantly you still don't get it. It "boggles" the OPs mind that Google comes around and gives it out for free. Why does it "boggle" anyone's mind when Google's primary source of income is advertisement and clearly they found a way to make more money off of it. You get my response now? So yes, it supports my point.

Edit: On top of that, this isn't a new thing either. Google starting enhancing maps for free. They added navigation for free. Not because they're bored but because there's clearly a way to make money off of it and so they undercut all the GPS manufactorers. It's not really mind boggling.

Apparantly you still don't get it. It "boggles" the OPs mind that Google comes around and gives it out for free. Why does it "boggle" anyone's mind when Google's primary source of income is advertisement and clearly they found a way to make more money off of it. You get my response now? So yes, it supports my point.

The OP was comparing it to other solutions that do the same but do charge.

You seemed to be trying to make the point that if you don't directly pay for it you somehow are being taken advantage of.

__________________
So where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday?

The OP was comparing it to other solutions that do the same but do charge.

You seemed to be trying to make the point that if you don't directly pay for it you somehow are being taken advantage of.

(two "two things" incoming)

Apparantly one of two things happened.
1) Google found a better way to make MORE money off of it (Maybe it's a better algorithm, maybe it's because people pay more because of the Google brand, maybe something else)
2) Google is willing to settle for lower margins

Anyways, you can look at it two ways.
1) If giving up information to another so that they can make money off of you is "getting taken advantage of". Then yes, if you're not paying directly for a service you are definitely "getting taken advantage of".
2) You're going to get Ads anyways, so may as well get Ads that are most likely targeted towards you. So by selling your information you are "getting a better experience". (that's probably what Google PR would prefer to say).

Don't automatically assume I'm anti-Google or anti-advertisement. But it's clear to me that if it's "free", it's definitely because they're making money elsewhere besides out of your wallet (well, I guess the advertisers are after your wallet)

(again, we need less knee jerk reactions here)

Edit: I guess one more editted comment. If you want to debate this more, we can take it to PM.

didnt know people had issues with the gmusic ap, works flawlessly for me, however all i do is stream with it. ive uploaded like 17000 songs to it and aside from some random taging and album art issues its been fine

Apparantly you still don't get it. It "boggles" the OPs mind that Google comes around and gives it out for free. Why does it "boggle" anyone's mind when Google's primary source of income is advertisement and clearly they found a way to make more money off of it. You get my response now? So yes, it supports my point.

Edit: On top of that, this isn't a new thing either. Google starting enhancing maps for free. They added navigation for free. Not because they're bored but because there's clearly a way to make money off of it and so they undercut all the GPS manufactorers. It's not really mind boggling.

As far as improving individual features/apps/services, it's not entirely about improving those because they can make more money directly through those apps. Part of it is the overall user enticement aspect. They are supporting their current customer base, improving things that have been requested, and they are making things better so they can reach out and entice more people to utilize that specific service; more importantly, they are trying to get more and more people under the Google umbrella. They want to make Android and even more enticing option, and they want people to not just use a single Google service or use a few of them sparingly, but rather use multiple services on a more frequent basis.

So, them upgrading Maps or improving Play Music isn't because they can directly get more advertising dollars from those services; it's part of the gamble that by improving all of their services, and add more features, they will be able to get more users to divulge more information about themselves and get more advertising revenue.

Which, honestly, I've grown to accept. I limit what I put under Google's umbrella, sure, but I still ultimately give them a lot of data because a) I like their services, and b) sometimes I actually do look into suggestions/ads. And it's the kind of information that, ultimately, I don't care if human eyes actually see and judge. Stuff I want to keep private, I keep away from data hoarders. Otherwise, I don't even care - sure I get ads out of it, but sometimes that customized advertising presence actually saves me time and money, and more importantly, I fuel Google's desire to maintain and improve their web presence, which gives me even better and additional free services that ALSO save me time and frustration; and hell, I'm all about efficiency (save for lengthy discussions ) so that tickles my fancy. Those free services also rival paid services, and sometimes the whole end result of multiple services provides a better experience than paid services.

__________________
"Spaceman + Goosemaster + Nemesis 1 =
Well if chicken curtain up with how glue general of should the sternum." - Jeff7
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
╕

Sorry, I should have been more clear. A client that can actually do something besides upload a list of your music. Like I dunno play the songs, as it stands having to play the songs on a PC from a web browser's beyond stupid. Google should offer this for free seeing how their implementation reeks of a beta product. And will probably never have basic features.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by TridenT

No, no, they exist. I've seen them.

They're not usually like hot-hot, but they're like hit it and quit it able.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. A client that can play the songs, as it stands having to play the songs on a PC from a web browser is beyond stupid. Google should offer this for free seeing how their implementation reeks of a beta product. And will probably never have basic features.

Google typically shies away from true desktop applications. They are very few and far between.

And while it's not likely what you are looking for in this case, they do make it possible: using Google's Music Manager, you can download (unlimited times through this route) all music that's in your cloud and not already on your desktop. Following this, you can use whatever media application you choose (considering they are straight mp3 files).

Not sure if this will change, but I don't see why it would.
Is it a Google-branded, all-inclusive media player? No, but it's the next best thing, and arguably, probably a better alternative anyway (they could offer an application and download some cryptic cache file formats, like on Play Music for Android, and force you to use said application/media manager).
That said, it would be nice if they improved the Music Manager utility, but it does its job and is very minimal.

__________________
"Spaceman + Goosemaster + Nemesis 1 =
Well if chicken curtain up with how glue general of should the sternum." - Jeff7
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
╕

As far as improving individual features/apps/services, it's not entirely about improving those because they can make more money directly through those apps.

Yeah for some cases it's probably a complex master plan as you mentioned. That's why I specifically brought up Google Maps as an example. Based on the prior Apple/Google maps relationship Google was somehow able to make money based on that stand alone capability (since the rest of the ecosystem was Apple) and so there's definitely some direct added value in somewhere from getting a user's location.

But yeah, it's something that some people choose to accept. I use Facebook and they're clearly making money off me and I definitely don't kid myself into wondering why such a wonderful service is free.

But yeah, it's something that some people choose to accept. I use Facebook and they're clearly making money off me and I definitely don't kid myself into wondering why such a wonderful service is free.

Google is selling companies to me.
Facebook is selling me to companies (or would be, if I were on it).

Sorry, I should have been more clear. A client that can actually do something besides upload a list of your music. Like I dunno play the songs, as it stands having to play the songs on a PC from a web browser's beyond stupid. Google should offer this for free seeing how their implementation reeks of a beta product. And will probably never have basic features.

They have a desktop client available, has been for(looking it up) 15 months now-

I would be delighted to hear your perspective. I treat them the same. The advertising model is the same. Based on the information they have on you, they can target the ads most specifically to you.

Facebook isn't just an ad platform: they're much less valuable/useful in that aspect than el Goog, since they aren't targeting people who are actively searching for something. What Facebook offers is (1) the use of social/peer pressure to get you to buy stuff (ugh, Zynga) and (2) the encouraged self-pigeonholing of its users into specific interest groups that businesses can specifically target. Not to my liking.

Which, to the best of my knowledge, does require the Play Music app. Even offline access is restricted. You either sync the music yourself and use your app of preference, or you are locked into Play Music if you desire the cloud syncing aspect.

You have to mark them for offline playback and wait for them to be copied. Then, you have to go digging in the Play Music cache folder, find which random-named file is the song you want, copy it out, rename it and edit in the tags.

__________________Wrote a note said Be Back in a Minute
Bought a boat and I sailed off in it
Don't think anybody's gonna miss me anyway

didnt know people had issues with the gmusic ap, works flawlessly for me, however all i do is stream with it. ive uploaded like 17000 songs to it and aside from some random taging and album art issues its been fine

Yea same here, I use it all the time and it does everything I need, namely playing music.

__________________
"the monkey house at the bronx zoo is more well-behaved than this hall and there's probably less feces-throwing, too. Goddamn."

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell

Sorry, I should have been more clear. A client that can actually do something besides upload a list of your music. Like I dunno play the songs, as it stands having to play the songs on a PC from a web browser's beyond stupid. Google should offer this for free seeing how their implementation reeks of a beta product. And will probably never have basic features.

So, you'd rather install an application like iTunes on every computer you use and you find that easier than just going to music.google.com and playing from any device or computer with a web browser? Wow, that's an interesting take.